July 1, 2010
In attendance: AP, MC, JS, PD, PH, JD, SF and DJ
LR
7:00
Continuance
37 Apace Road – Mr. Gordon Clark
Variance request for a garage
Sitting in: PD, JS, AP, PH and JD
Mr. Clark requested a continuance to August 5th (in writing) as he was out of town.
JS motion to grant the continuance as requested.
JD second.
All in favor to continue to August 5, 2010.
Continuation
15 North Main Street – Mr. and Mrs. Bernie of Paws and Claws
Special Permit for overnight dog care
Sitting in: JS, AP, PD, SF and DJ
AP opened the continuation. He stated that at the last hearing the board had some concerns and allowed the applicant time to gather more information. Mrs. Bernier explained they did their research on the fire safety concerns that the board had. She stated that the other local overnight animal facilities mostly relied on smoke detectors for fire safety and all of their animals were left alone through the night. Mrs. Bernier stated their dogs would be alone from 9:00 PM to 7:00 am when they or their employees returned to work. The applicants presented an operations manual stating employee schedules, emergency numbers and procedures. JD was concerned about waste disposal. Mrs. Bernier stated that it was normally bagged and then disposed in a waste receptacle which was picked up regularly. AP stated that this
would be for a maximum of 12 dogs. The applicant was in agreement. The Board members felt the operations manual was helpful and would be kept in the permanent files if any questions arose in the future.
JS motion to close.
PD second.
All in favor to close the hearing.
JS motion to approve the request for a Special Permit section 2400 to allow for overnight dog care with a maximum of 12 dogs at one time.
PD second.
All in favor ( 5- 0 ) to grant the Special Permit.
AP reminded the applicants there was a 20 day appeal period.
New
26 Kathy Drive – Harold F. Montville
Variance to construct a garage
Sitting in: JS, AP, PD, MC and JD
AP opened the hearing. Mr. Montville presented a certified plot plan of his property showing the proposed garage. He stated his lot consisted of 26,000 square feet and is in a residential zone. The current requirements for the requested construction are 20’ in the front yard, 10’ in the side yard and 20’ in the rear yard. The applicant is requesting a 3 foot side yard setback as there is a 7 foot area there now. He stated that the problem was due to the fact that the property was shaped with an extreme angle affecting the corner of the proposed garage. He stated it would be a financial hardship if he was not granted the variance as to put the garage on the opposite side of the home would be too costly as he would have to cut down many trees and put a new driveway in. He felt that the relief could be
granted without detriment to the public good nor would it derogate from the intent of the bylaw as there would still be a wide separation (approximately 30’) between the proposed garage and his neighbor. His neighbor was in attendance and spoke in favor of the project.
The board discussed if there was another area on the property the garage/addition could be built, if the garage/addition could be configured differently, if it would derogate from the bylaw, and if the applicant did meet the hardships required in the bylaw. Board Members questioned as to why it could not be put further back. The applicant stated that the garage would have to be made smaller which would make it difficult to open the car doors once they were parked inside. Also they would have to configure the existing doors and windows differently which would cost more money. Some board members felt this would be a self-imposed financial hardship. AP felt it was a valid financial hardship as he had the pool, an entrance, windows and a deck to consider and the trees would have to be taken down, which wasn’t
the case if he was to get the variance as requested. AP considered that the neighbor was in favor and that it also wouldn’t derogate from the purpose of the bylaw. Some board members felt the applicant had other options.
JS motion to close.
MC second.
All in favor to close.
JD motion to grant the variance of 3 feet as requested on the application.
JS second.
1 in favor (AP)
4 opposed (JS, PD, MC and JD
The variance request is denied.
Continuation
Assessors Map 64/Lot 212 – South Center Realty
40B Comprehensive Permit
Sitting in: JS, AP, PD, PH and JD
JS took over as acting chairman for the 40B Special Permit hearing and opened the continuation. JS stated that James Dunlea was absent from the previous hearing but did view the tape and he was re-instated as a voting member. JS stated that the issues that were of concern from the last hearing were in regards to the Conservation Commission, DPW, Planning Board, lighting and trees. There was a letter dated 6/25/10 from the Conservation Commission which was read aloud. The applicant, Don Seaburg, stated they were in the process of doing an amendment with the conservation commission and that they (the concom) asked for additional information, which they planned on giving them. JS stated that the traffic issues were a big concern and that an outside traffic consultant was hired. Dan Mills of MDM was in
attendance and presented a binder of his findings. He stated he did a comparison of the previous proposal of 164 homes with the new proposal of 100 homes, which was less of an impact. The traffic analysis was discussed in detail. There were many residents in attendance with concerns of the traffic, traffic lights, street width, turn lanes, entrances and exits. JS asked if the DPW had any comments. The applicant stated they were given the sewer plans and had not heard back with comments yet. Don Seaburg will check with the DPW director. JS stated he wanted to make sure that the impacts have not changed for the DPW. The sewer construction phases were discussed. The applicant stated that they must meet all conditions and approvals from the different departments to do the construction. The school bus routes and details were a concern. The applicant stated that would be worked out with the bus company and the safety officer.
The board stated they wanted to have Don Dimartino’s recommendations, the safety officers and fire departments comments at the next meeting. Jay Talerman, Town Counsel stated that the board had until July 12th to make a decision under the remand order. The applicant requested a continuance. The board members and applicant agreed to continue to July 15, 2010 at 7:00 PM.
AP motion to continue to July 15, 2010.
PD second.
All in favor to continue as requested.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM.
Approved 8/5/10
| 
